Very few cost effective counters to upgraded Grens

Are the DPS calculations for penals with or without flamer ?

I find russians very esy to use in urban areas, whne in early stages of game germans do not have any reliable way how to smoke them out of the building.

Yes first 2 minutes but after Germans tech to Battle Phase 1 it's LMG and Rifle grenade party

Volsky, I might need to buy you flowers. You've done a great job backing up what I'm trying to explain my other thread.

Should we get into how much harder it is to spot a rifle nade being readied vs. a Molotov throw? No, probably not....That way madness lies. But that also has a lot to do with the vetting problem you wise folk are discussing.

Back when grenade warnings weren't bugged, that wasn't so much the case. I think mid-level balance would be really improved if they'd just fix all the various grenade bugs.

If they won't move they will get punished by mortar or by thrown molotov.

No, they won't. Even if you molotov move onto a stationary LMGd gren in a vacuum, you'll lose 2-3 man before you even throw that molotov. Then the gren makes a step outside the flames and continues to batter your man.

And mortar is just ridiculous. The probability to hit in this small timeframe is too low to rely on it. I'd rather build another cons and flank with them then try with a mortar.

Even if you molotov move onto a stationary LMGd gren in a vacuum, you'll lose 2-3 man before you even throw that molotov. Then the gren makes a step outside the flames and continues to batter your man.

If you move towards a setup LMG Gren, in a vauum, you will ofc lose some Cons.
Throwing the molotov makes no difference to that, nor should it. Nor shouldyou be able to defeat the LMG Gren with just one Con squad.

If you have two Cons however, the Molotov will force displacement, which desetups the LMG, and changes the engagement entirely.

But can still result in a loss for the Soviet player since for that cost, he'll have a second Gren backing him up.

Then it gets worse when you have 2 LMGs, which may cost more, but are definitely worth the money.

But can still result in a loss for the Soviet player since for that cost, he'll have a second Gren backing him up. .

Which is fine, because the Ost player still has more invested in the fight. In Muni, and in having the LMG setup.

Then it gets worse when you have 2 LMGs, which may cost more, but are definitely worth the money.

Doesnt get worse, Sov just needs to bring atlest the equivalent cost/function to that escalation.

That Cons dont have a non-doctrinal Muni upgrade to bring to that fight for equivalency, may be an overarching and existing problem, but that vacuumed example engagement is playing out just fine and asi it should, within the current constraints of the game.

But you forget that Soviets are investing munis, a lot of them. Those AT grenades and Petrol Bombs do have a munitions cost. It may be lower, but they are required to win most engagements, providing a more constant munitions drain.

It's not the same as paying for upgrades ahead of time, but the cost is there.

The situation is definitely more complex than X should win because, resources. But that goes both ways.

Edit: But, I do think Grens actually should win the long and mid range engagement cost for cost, both because it's intentional, and also because it makes for an interesting dynamic.

The problem comes about when that intended strength multiplies out of control due to other factors. The conscripts can get dropped incredibly fast from a long range in those situations, faster than the intended damage that conscripts should take going in.

That can lead to the overall complaint that we're seeing here, that conscripts aren't enough. And that's fine, but what happens when the support for conscripts also isn't enough.

It may be that conscripts don't need a buff, or an upgrade, but that support needs the upgrade, hence all the talk about Soviet tanks or AT. So that it becomes less of an issue if conscripts can outright win against grens when it can get some better support that tips the odds with proper micro.

Sure, an arguable set of perspectives.

Except that I didn't "forget" anything.

The problem is that weapon upgrades are a one time Munitions cost that doesn't also increase reinforcement cost. This makes squads with a munitions weapons upgrade too cost effective vs squads that don't have the option.

No, they won't. Even if you molotov move onto a stationary LMGd gren in a vacuum, you'll lose 2-3 man before you even throw that molotov. Then the gren makes a step outside the flames and continues to batter your man.

And mortar is just ridiculous. The probability to hit in this small timeframe is too low to rely on it. I'd rather build another cons and flank with them then try with a mortar.

I'm not talking about frontal attack and mortar works just fine for me. Maybe it's about the way in which you're utilizing the unit?

The problem is that weapon upgrades are a one time Munitions cost that doesn't also increase reinforcement cost. This makes squads with a munitions weapons upgrade too cost effective vs squads that don't have the option.

Doesnt make them "too cost effective", just makes them more cost effective, or to be really specific, not even more cost effective bur the correct notion of simply more effective at performing their role.

You have afterall already paid the upgrade cost, it would be "too cost ineffective" to include that in every single reinforce, when its not the models that have the upgrade, that are being reinforced. See what I mean?
Ì
Would be cost inneffective if, for example, Cons cost more to reinforce after you upgraded for PPSH, or even Lolotov/ATNade. Guard would also get prohibitively more expensive once DP was purchased.

I dont know exactly what costs, if any, are incurred in reinforcing an already purchased weapon back to the unit if it is lost due to a model dying, or dropped.

conscripts have to research AT nades and molotovs which is a much heftier price to pay than battle phase 1, that unlocks all grenadiers upgrades and abilties, barring the doctrinal ones.

on top of that, molotovs have a muni cost per use that adds up, while LMG is a 1 time payment, over time, the LMG is going to be more cost effective, which is the point of the topic.

LMG is a relatively affordable upgrade that makes grenadiers too effective at killing infantry regardless of cover or not, the dps really do add up.

of course, players can decide to spend on rifle grenades which by itself is a great burst damage tool against soviet infantry and set up teams, arguably superior to molotovs in open ground and varied effectiveness against buildings.

Then PPSH Cons and DP Guards would also cost more to reinforce.

Be careful what you wish for.

Logically it makes no sense to have to pay increased reinforce for models in a unit that happens to have an LMG unless the LMG is lost. The remqining models are still on armed with Kars, why should they cost more?

ATNade and Molotov cost extra to buy presumably because Cons have Merge and Oorah as native, which is a hardcoded and inherent factor to which Grens quite simply have nothing in comparison.

Its often understated that Ost also has to buy Battlephase to gain access to RNade, Faust and LMG. The fact that that is a forced purchase, because you cant tier without it, is also understated, and is a crucial factor of asymmetric design. A Sov player can choose not to purchase ATNade or Molotov, or both. An Ost player is categorically forced to buy Battlephase 1, no matter what.

Its often understated that Ost also has to buy Battlephase to gain access to RNade, Faust and LMG. The fact that that is a forced purchase, because you cant tier without it, is also understated, and is a crucial factor of asymmetric design. A Sov player can choose not to purchase ATNade or Molotov, or both. An Ost player is categorically forced to buy Battlephase 1, no matter what.

You have access to faust always (with Grenadiers, Osttruppen require T1 building). You have access to LMG always. You need battle phase to get access to Rifle nades.

I'm pretty sure you are the only person in the world who thinks it's somehow unfair for germans to have to get the battle phase upgrade (200/25) to get access to rnades while soviets have molotovs as an optional upgrade(120/25) that doesn't help them gain access to any new units.

It would be nice to have Cons equipped with nades by default tbh. It could help extending the period in which T-70/ T-34/76 can do the most damage as well so it could be a nice change. helping Soviet tech a bit.
It makes sense as Grens comes with Panzerfaust from the beginning.

the main reason for bphase 1 is to unlock more units, not primarily to unlock rnade and faust, these 2 abilities are actually a bonus in bphase 1.

in that context, bphase 1 is actually there to regulate the timing of such abilities. but facts are facts, there is a cost associated to unlocking abilities, yet it must not be overstated that battle phase 1 is a forced choice, but instead, governed by design. battle phase serves more than just unlocking grenadiers full potential.

with that said, it can be argued that molotovs and AT nades are much more costly than grenadier's unlocks.

LMGs just don't have any equivalent on the Soviet side and what there is is doctrinal (Guards rifles).

LMGs are a one-time upgrade that scales really well over time and cause a veterancy gap.

In my other thread I proposed that the best solution, given that the conscript scales so poorly, is an upgradeable suppress ability. Basically, conscripts need bars. I don't think they need the damage of bars, but they really need to be able to counter LMG grens (and Panzergrens) with suppression. I'd rather they took away the doctrinal options of SMGs and gave the whole damn faction suppression TBH. SMGs + suppression would just be OP.

Its often understated that Ost also has to buy Battlephase to gain access to RNade, Faust and LMG. The fact that that is a forced purchase, because you cant tier without it, is also understated, and is a crucial factor of asymmetric design. A Sov player can choose not to purchase ATNade or Molotov, or both. An Ost player is categorically forced to buy Battlephase 1, no matter what.

Boo fucking hoo. Did you forget the fact that the German buildings hardly even require fuel?? So no, battle phase is not this super duper important factor you make it out to be. For Germans to tech T1>T3>P4 is 190 fuel, for Soviets to go T2>T3>T34 is 175 fuel.

Show Spoiler

Germans can meet the requisites and build T3 for 15 fuel cheaper than Soviets (skipping molotov and AT nade), and they get Rnade and Faust included. The only advantage Soviet has is the cheaper medium tank, but the tank being cheaper is hardly an advantage since it is inferior.

So, question, LMGs got a small nerf, right.

Is anyone really feeling it?

People seem to be complaining just the same.